PDA

View Full Version : Attn 3D modellers



XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 03:56 PM
When doing your cockpit modelling, please model the view as to what the pilot would see on the >>inner surface<< of the armour glass.

I see Fievel has continued the error which one sees on the Fw190. The lower frame for the armour glass is too large(high) in size.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 03:56 PM
When doing your cockpit modelling, please model the view as to what the pilot would see on the >>inner surface<< of the armour glass.

I see Fievel has continued the error which one sees on the Fw190. The lower frame for the armour glass is too large(high) in size.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:23 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- When doing your cockpit modelling, please model the
- view as to what the pilot would see on the >>inner
- surface<< of the armour glass.
-
- I see Fievel has continued the error which one sees
- on the Fw190. The lower frame for the armour glass
- is too large(high) in size.


It is not error.

It is correct way of doing things. It is only too bad that engine doesn't model refraction.

Trying to such thing may well cause clipping problems with the nose of the plane, or other things elsewhere.

I will personally not make my life more difficult by doing such thing, and I do not recommend it to anyone else doing modelling either.

It is shame we have such "hardware limitation", but at least it will be even playground for all planes with armored panels.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:50 PM
Jippo, it IS an error. It is NOT the "correct way of doing things".

The vision reference plane for the pilot is the >>inner surface<< of the armour glass. Any high school drafting student knows this. What is so hard about understanding that? This is NOT modelling refraction as what would have to be done for the gun sight aiming line of sight.

It is NOT an "even playing field" for those a/c with acutely raked armour glass, such as the Fw190.

It is to bad you won't make the little effort required to do it properly./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


Jippo01 wrote:
-
- It is not error.
-
- It is correct way of doing things. It is only too
- bad that engine doesn't model refraction.
-
- Trying to such thing may well cause clipping
- problems with the nose of the plane, or other things
- elsewhere.
-
- I will personally not make my life more difficult by
- doing such thing, and I do not recommend it to
- anyone else doing modelling either.
-
- It is shame we have such "hardware limitation", but
- at least it will be even playground for all planes
- with armored panels.
-


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:56 PM
I think I have much more experience from the field of modelling things than you, thus I stay with my opinion of what is correct and what is not.

Also I think it is not little effort, but a pretty difficult thing to do correctly. Not worth it IMO.

Pick up modelling and do it yourself how ever you like, but don't start to tell other people how to do things, ok?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:02 PM
It's not only a matter of personal taste of the modeller.

There are not many WWII aviation sims around and FB is in my opinion clearly the best one for the moment.

So, if an aircraft gets a wrong cockpit view because of the choice of a single person, it will annoy many more persons playing with this aircraft for the next two or three years.

Ok, the world will not stop to turn because of it, but it can nevertheless spoil the pleasure of many guys.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:22 PM
Jippo your very good at 3d modeling but I agree with what hes saying alot of the 3d cockpit models dont have perspective modeling many of the cockpit struts have the same width messurement in the distance as closer to the top of the canopy.

for ex look how thick they are in your stuka cockpit I have a video of the cockpit of the ju87 at duxford I will try to convert it and take a capture.

But you are totally right about hiding the clipping which the 190 canopy bar does and alot of the new models. Jippo btw do you know who made the mig cockpit that thing needs to be retextured badly

http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW4/Ju87-76.jpg


http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW4/Ju87-91.jpg



http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter



Message Edited on 09/29/0305:27PM by LeadSpitter_

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:23 PM
You don't have a clue how much drafting/modelling experience I have, but is sure as he!l more than you./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You definately have no drafting experience.

A 1/2 hour, and that is TRULY stretching it, to calculate the height of the lower framing is all it would take.

Did I tell people? No I asked them to do it correctly, AND with a "PLEASE".

Jippo01 wrote:
-
- I think I have much more experience from the field
- of modelling things than you, thus I stay with my
- opinion of what is correct and what is not.
-
- Also I think it is not little effort, but a pretty
- difficult thing to do correctly. Not worth it IMO.
-
- Pick up modelling and do it yourself how ever you
- like, but don't start to tell other people how to do
- things, ok?
-


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:44 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- -
- for ex look how thick they are in your stuka cockpit
- I have a video of the cockpit of the ju87 at duxford
- I will try to convert it and take a capture.
-

Now you've got me there,a Ju 87 at Duxford,how long ago was that,i havent seen one there,Hendon yes,but not Duxford in the last 15 years.
The only thing i can think of was a large scale model hanging up in a hangar i believe was used in the B o B film in 1969,please post some pictures of it,i'm intrigued,Ta
-

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:44 PM
O.K. I really can't see what you are getting at Milo if it's not a refractive effect.

Let me see if I have this straight, without any glass there you would see what I have modelled which is the actual geometry of the cockpit?

If this is the case then surely the only effect of adding the glass can be its refractive properties. If this is the case then yes I could calculate the position of the outer edge of the frame very easily however the problem is that everything else seen through the glass should really be refracted as well. Seeing as we can't do this I would rather keep the whole thing consistant and not do any corrections, especially if it isn't being done for any of the other models.

Anyway if I've got this all upside down please correct me, feel free to use all the maths you want, I can take it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

--------
Fievel

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:47 PM
CHDT wrote:
- It's not only a matter of personal taste of the
- modeller.
-
- There are not many WWII aviation sims around and FB
- is in my opinion clearly the best one for the
- moment.
-
- So, if an aircraft gets a wrong cockpit view because
- of the choice of a single person, it will annoy many
- more persons playing with this aircraft for the next
- two or three years.
-
- Ok, the world will not stop to turn because of it,
- but it can nevertheless spoil the pleasure of many
- guys.
-
- Cheers,


Maybe your pleasure is then too easily spoiled?


If the cockpit dimensions are right how can the cockpit be wrongly done????

Cockpit will only be CORRECT when it's dimensions are right. Trying to mimick refraction in model will result the cockpit to be INCORRECT.



It is not the task of a cockpit modeller try to make thinner struts because people have peripheral vision, nor is it place an instrument somewhere where it can be seen by the player if it was not in the real one. I doesn't lead anywhere:"Alter this cockpit because I cannot see the compass, although real Yak pilots could move their head and see it!"



That is not realism.


Realism is improving the game engine so that the CORRECT virtual cockpits can be seen as in RL.

Read again: Cockpit is not wrong if it is done as it is/was in the RL. Cockpit is wrong if it's dimensions are changed in an attempt to mimic a real world occurrence like refraction.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:49 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:


Perspective is not modelled.

I've seen the Hendon Stuka and have taken photos of it no need to convert video.

Don't know who made the Mig.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 07:01 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- You don't have a clue how much drafting/modelling
- experience I have, but is sure as he!l more than
- you.


Ok. Little longer explanation is in place.

Say I would model the armored glass refraction in Ju-88 C-6 being worked on right now. First off, we need two sets of refraction calculations, for the pilot and for the observer. Armored glass is only in the front of the pilot so observer will see it from the side only.

Calculations are bit triscky already but that is not the problem.

Problem is that if I start changing dimensions of one part, invariably other parts are affect in the process, right? Because all the parts are connected to other parts, and if their dimensions change, other parts much change too. So how far would it go depends obviously of the particular case in question, but if I had to change say instrument panel to get the view out right, is it worth it? And most of all is it realism?

And of course I would need to do two different cockpit models, one for the pilot and one for the observer, because glass refraction is different for each of them. Again, is it w....

And finally when I have the cockpits done I start to put them into the model, will I have a clipping problem with the polygons in the nose of the external model? How to deal with it? Raise the cockpit so that the lowered front bar will hide them? And thus change all views out of the plane! Is it....


My opinion is, as I said, it is not worth it.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 07:04 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- I think I have much more experience from the field
- of modelling things than you, thus I stay with my
- opinion of what is correct and what is not.
-
- Also I think it is not little effort, but a pretty
- difficult thing to do correctly. Not worth it IMO.
-
- Pick up modelling and do it yourself how ever you
- like, but don't start to tell other people how to do
- things, ok?


Milo is right, and you have a bad attitude, Jippo. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 07:24 PM
Col.Tomb wrote:
-
- Milo is right, and you have a bad attitude, Jippo.


Care to point what is wrong with my attitude?

I think we may disagree about my opinion (if it is bad or good), but not about my attitude.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 07:27 PM
Jippo is right.

Cockpit geometry is cockpit geometry and there's no room for interpretations. If FB doesn't model refraction then you don't see refraction.

This is like asking to remove or make thinner cockpit bars because in real life with your two eyes they would be less annoying. It's not the correct way of doing things.







|TAO|

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:10 PM
I also thing Jippo is right...

You could compensate the lack of refraction by modelling the cockpit frame in a different way, but that would only make things worse as the rest of the frame would be afected by it, increasing the innacuracies of the model.

And then your high-res 3D cockpit model wouldn't match the outside low-res model, probably showing strange holes here and there (as it already happens in some planes, like the LaGG3. Or is it the Yak-7? Nevermind...).

The only solution could be to find a better camera position in the FW-190. But even that could be a huge problem as everything is modelled to look fine from that point of view. What you can't see from that point of view is simply not modelled. If you move the head you might start seeing strange holes...

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/J8_01.jpg



Message Edited on 09/29/0308:12PM by Capt_Haddock

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:27 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- You definately have no drafting experience.


Says you when talking to an architect. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I just noticed it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 09:14 PM
nice looking banner Haddock /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

5 days to go... getting a bit nervous I tell you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cheers



<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:17 AM
Jippo, I am fairly new to posting on the forum so I apologize if I'm not exactly sure of your position. I am curious if you could respond to my thread. From what I have seen in real life (I have been close up with 2 190s)there is no bar obstructing the 190 Revi 16 sight. I realize that there are many factors invovled in modeling and I am no expert by any means. However, from the photos that I have taken and from my own actual observation of the 190(from the cockpit) the view from what I have seen is different from the FB in-game cockpit view. Why is that? I mean that sincerely.
Thanks

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zukof



Message Edited on 09/30/0305:18AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:56 AM
TAO-Squadron wrote:
- Jippo is right.
-
- Cockpit geometry is cockpit geometry and there's no
- room for interpretations. If FB doesn't model
- refraction then you don't see refraction.

FB models whatever it is told to model. If you make a 3D model of a pink flamingo, you're going to see a pink flamingo in the sim.

The line of sight through angled glass is offset. Anyone can model that in FB. It doesn't take special "refraction code". All you have to do is consider how the 3D model looks from the point of view of the pilot.

- It's not the correct way of doing things.

Maybe you don't understand how simple it is to put refraction into the 3D model. It is not necessary to recalculate and bend things as seen on the external model. Simply offset the parts of the internal model by a few millimeters.

With logic like this, I am glad none of these so-called modelling experts were allowed to meddle with the mirrors and gunsights in FB.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:13 AM
Col.Tomb wrote:
- TAO-Squadron wrote:
-- Jippo is right.
--
-- Cockpit geometry is cockpit geometry and there's no
-- room for interpretations. If FB doesn't model
-- refraction then you don't see refraction.
-
- FB models whatever it is told to model. If you make
- a 3D model of a pink flamingo, you're going to see a
- pink flamingo in the sim.
-
- The line of sight through angled glass is offset.
- Anyone can model that in FB. It doesn't take
- special "refraction code". All you have to do is
- consider how the 3D model looks from the point of
- view of the pilot.
-
-- It's not the correct way of doing things.
-
- Maybe you don't understand how simple it is to put
- refraction into the 3D model. It is not necessary
- to recalculate and bend things as seen on the
- external model. Simply offset the parts of the
- internal model by a few millimeters.
-
- With logic like this, I am glad none of these
- so-called modelling experts were allowed to meddle
- with the mirrors and gunsights in FB.
-
-

I second that. In the crusade for the geometricaly perfect cockpits we can't see artificial horizont and some other gauges in Tempest, compas and fuel gauge in other planes...Instead of overcoming the monitor screen disadvantages, it is made even harder...

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:45 AM
Col.Tomb wrote:

- Maybe you don't understand how simple it is to put
- refraction into the 3D model. It is not necessary
- to recalculate and bend things as seen on the
- external model. Simply offset the parts of the
- internal model by a few millimeters.
-
- With logic like this, I am glad none of these
- so-called modelling experts were allowed to meddle
- with the mirrors and gunsights in FB.


I'm personally glad that three poster in this thread are actual "modelling experts" who have produced models in the game. I made the Stukas, Capt. Haddock has nade Gladiator and is now working with the cockpit, Fievel is also doing cockpit for Spitfire as we speak.

If you think it is easy, rea my posts once more. If you still think it is easy, my suggestion to you is the same as I gave to Mr. Milo. Picku up modelling and do it yourself, for me it is difficult enough as it is without fake refractions. You seem to know much better so why don't you.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:48 AM
IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
- Jippo, I am fairly new to posting on the forum so I
- apologize if I'm not exactly sure of your position.
- I am curious if you could respond to my thread.


My position is not such that it would help to improve the view out of 190. I also don't want to get into lengthy debates about the matter either, so must pass visiting your thread, sorry.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:51 AM
Erbriac wrote:

-- Maybe you don't understand how simple it is to put
-- refraction into the 3D model. It is not necessary
-- to recalculate and bend things as seen on the
-- external model. Simply offset the parts of the
-- internal model by a few millimeters.
--
-- With logic like this, I am glad none of these
-- so-called modelling experts were allowed to meddle
-- with the mirrors and gunsights in FB.
--
--
-
- I second that. In the crusade for the geometricaly
- perfect cockpits we can't see artificial horizont
- and some other gauges in Tempest, compas and fuel
- gauge in other planes...Instead of overcoming the
- monitor screen disadvantages, it is made even
- harder...


Hey! Great idea!!!

We really could just re-invent these cockpits, and make them so that everyone including Milo could see out and all the instruments would not be obstructed! What a great idea!

Would make modellers job so much easier as we wouldn't need to find all sorts of sources on cockpits and stuff.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:57 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
-- Jippo, I am fairly new to posting on the forum so I
-- apologize if I'm not exactly sure of your position.
-- I am curious if you could respond to my thread.
-
-
- My position is not such that it would help to
- improve the view out of 190. I also don't want to
- get into lengthy debates about the matter either, so
- must pass visiting your thread, sorry.
-
-
--jippo


*fingers in ears*

LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LA LA LA LA LA....

Why yes, Emperor, that is a fine suit of clothes you are wearing. So sorry but we can't be bothered by things that do not please us.

<font size="-2">'Perfect' is enemy of 'good enough' --Admiral Gorshkov
It's a trap! --Admiral Ackbar</font>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:58 AM
And it's still, after all, a voluntary service they're offering us, so quit fecking feeling hurt about the great loss of refraction.

<DIV ALIGN=right>That's right!</DIV>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:04 AM
For a bunch of people that are so hell-bent on dimensional perfection, how come these expert 3D modellers don't have a problem with 2 meter thick wings at low LOD? Huh? I dare you modeller "experts" to come up with an excuse for that one.

The pro-refraction group is asking for a shift of 1cm. Meanwhile we've got experts blinded by their own hubris creating 2 meter thick wings. Everything in life is a tradeoff.

<font size="-2">'Perfect' is enemy of 'good enough' --Admiral Gorshkov
It's a trap! --Admiral Ackbar</font>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:07 AM
Sigi_di_Capri wrote:
- And it's still, after all, a voluntary service
- they're offering us

They knew it was voluntary when they signed up. In the absence of money the modellers ought to be looking for rewards in other ways, say, by enjoying their work. Jippo seems pretty unhappy, unfortunately.

<font size="-2">'Perfect' is enemy of 'good enough' --Admiral Gorshkov
It's a trap! --Admiral Ackbar</font>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:07 AM
Col.Tomb wrote:

-
- *fingers in ears*
-
- LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LA LA LA LA LA....
-
- Why yes, Emperor, that is a fine suit of clothes you
- are wearing. So sorry but we can't be bothered by
- things that do not please us.
-
- <font size="-2">'Perfect' is enemy of 'good
- enough' --Admiral Gorshkov
- It's a trap! --Admiral Ackbar</font>


Really what is your problem? I had nothing to do with 190 cockpit and never will! It is a Maddox Games job, and I have not got a single way to chahge the way they do things, no matter what I do.

Quit being a fool!


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:15 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Really what is your problem?

You are angry. It's amusing because (a) you come up with the best replies, and (b) you haven't caught on to how refraction could work yet.

- I had nothing to do with 190 cockpit and never will!

No matter how right or wrong the 190 cockpit is, you plan to leave it alone, then? I'm glad you're so willing to spend such a huge effort perfecting other other aircraft without any care for the rest of the game.

- Quit being a fool!

ad hominem, 5 yard penalty, redo 1st down.

<font size="-2">'Perfect' is enemy of 'good enough' --Admiral Gorshkov
It's a trap! --Admiral Ackbar</font>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:15 AM
No need to be ironic. I meant that the cockpits are not for printing to large format and hang them on the wall but to provide feedback as they did in RL. If one plane photos showed the cocpit is wrong, the other one must necessarily be too? If your daughter is sick, lets make the neighbour's one too? Why is such a problem not to extrude the 2D armored glass bars profile 50mm but only 20mm?

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:17 AM
Col.Tomb wrote:

- They knew it was voluntary when they signed up. In
- the absence of money the modellers ought to be
- looking for rewards in other ways, say, by enjoying
- their work. Jippo seems pretty unhappy,
- unfortunately.

Well, you needn't to worry about my rewards.

And to tell you the truth, I'm bit down right now. Why? Read your posts, and don't you think that could make somebody feel sad?

I tried to help Milo to see what can be done and what not, and I end up in this endless debate with people who have no clue what is involved in making the cockpits.

I'm very sad because you are now wasting valuabl√¬∂e modelling time, lot's of it.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:24 AM
Erbriac wrote:
- No need to be ironic. I meant that the cockpits are
- not for printing to large format and hang them on
- the wall but to provide feedback as they did in RL.
- If one plane photos showed the cocpit is wrong, the
- other one must necessarily be too? If your daughter
- is sick, lets make the neighbour's one too? Why is
- such a problem not to extrude the 2D armored glass
- bars profile 50mm but only 20mm?


Well sorry for being ironic, but your suggestion is really re-inventing the cockpit.

You see, now the cockpits are doen to match their historical counterparts as closely as possible. We do not invent anything if we do not have to.

Reasoning behind that is clear, this sim has been advertised being the "most realistic ...." This realism in good and bad is lost if we would start inventing things. And that is the standard set by the developer, and to which 3rd party agrees.

I see your point, and as I said it would make modellers job a lot easier. But the thing is, we are trying to build as exact copies as we can.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:28 AM
Sorry to post yet again, but I just found a real gem:

Jippo01 said:
Cockpit will only be CORRECT when it's dimensions are right. Trying to mimick refraction in model will result the cockpit to be INCORRECT.

And to that, I say:

This is a simulation, not a CAD model. The entire simulated experience ought to be as close to reality as possible. Making the cockpit model "incorrect" by 1cm lets us SIMULATE how it looks in reality.

Let me reiterate: this is a SIMULATOR, not a dimensionally perfect blueprint. Refraction is real and it can be simulated by a trivial change to the cockpit model.

To get the refraction right, we must of course start with a dimensionally perfect model. That's where good people like Jippo and Fievel come in with their fantastic precise cockpits. Then, before the cockpits can be incorporated into the sim, we shift a small portion by a little bit to realize the refraction.

This kind of mutation already takes place in the sim. There is precedent. Check out those 2 meter thick wings in the low LOD models.

<font size="-2">'Perfect' is enemy of 'good enough' --Admiral Gorshkov
It's a trap! --Admiral Ackbar</font>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:29 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
- I'm very sad because you are now wasting valuabl√¬∂e
- modelling time, lot's of it.

It doesn't take much time to argue over the internet. I'd rather waste your time than get another screwed up windscreen without refraction.

<font size="-2">'Perfect' is enemy of 'good enough' --Admiral Gorshkov
It's a trap! --Admiral Ackbar</font>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:31 AM
Col.Tomb wrote:

- You are angry. It's amusing because (a) you come up
- with the best replies, and (b) you haven't caught on
- to how refraction could work yet.

I understand the basics of physics, and when ever in doubt I have Serway's "Physics" right here with me to help me.


- No matter how right or wrong the 190 cockpit is, you
- plan to leave it alone, then? I'm glad you're so
- willing to spend such a huge effort perfecting other
- other aircraft without any care for the rest of the
- game.

I have spend enough time in 190 debates, and Oleg has stated that nothing will change no matter what you willl put up. Enough for me, I do not want to waste my time with it anymore.


-- Quit being a fool!
-
- ad hominem, 5 yard penalty, redo 1st down.

You should take my advice.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:33 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
- I'm very sad because you are now wasting valuabl√¬∂e
- modelling time, lot's of it.

Leave it be Jippo. Mr Tomb is obviously having a boring day at work. He is obviously trying to upset you by provoking you. so.... leave it be.

Mr Tomb, you are entitled to have an opinion as we all do, but please refrain from beeing rude and insulting. This forum would be a better place if we just could stick to mere solid arguments. Refraining from rude language would also make your own arguments to seem better.

By ignoring insults and not answering them would be the best way to clean this forum up.

Cheers mates - all of you!

<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>


Message Edited on 09/30/0310:35AM by F19_Orheim

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:33 AM
Col.Tomb wrote:
- Jippo01 wrote:
-- I'm very sad because you are now wasting valuabl√¬∂e
-- modelling time, lot's of it.
-
- It doesn't take much time to argue over the
- internet. I'd rather waste your time than get
- another screwed up windscreen without refraction.
-

I have wasted an hour here with you now!

And that is the last of it. You can bet that the models I will do will have the sscrewed up windshield in the future too, good bye!


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:34 AM
Jippo always has a bad attitude, and thats coming from someone with a bad attitude.

Still Im more then happy at jippos work, hes doing more then most of us actually modeling the cockpits.


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:50 AM
Guys you have no clue.

Glad Jippo and Haddock are doing the models and not you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



|TAO|

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:20 AM
I've got a few thousand hours CAD experience, both 2D and 3D, and have to say that I sympathise with both sides of the camp.

Ultimately though the issue is one of 'interpretation'.

(and yes I know the refraction can be calculated, six times in total for the six cockpit views).

Should it be encouraged/allowed or not.

And I have to side with Jippo because:

a. That's the way it was done from the start.

b. If it was allowed then imagine the whines that would result.

The 2 metre thick wings argument is not, IMHO, relevant as this is external and the viewing distances are of near infinite variability, in direct contrast to the cockpit view.

It does sadden me to see people questioning each others abilities, especially when those talents are being employed for free for the community.

Respect to the modellers, one and all, and lets have some 'sane' debate.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:00 PM
Not much to add to this thread, except to say that Jippo and Haddock are spot on in their arguments. Cheers

I/JG54^Lukas
He 162 A-2 Cockpit Modeler
...and soon the Hs 129 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:58 PM
Hehe, you people are funny! Now what would Haddock,Lukas,and Jippo know about modelling?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I can't believe you guys are sitting here arguing with some of the best modellers in this community as if you knew MORE about it than they did! Priceless...

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:05 PM
Agreed necrobaron.

Jippo and Tomb, take a look at the little worker and parasite picture at the bottom of my posts, and remember who's who.

Totally unbelievable that people are going so far out of their way to **** off someone doing work for them, for no promise of any money. Rude doesn't even begin to cover it.



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)